mr h atom wrote:of course... we all know paul would never do anything just because he wanted to...or because he thought it felt right for him: he always does things just to try (even though we all know it can never happen) to be as good, or better, than john...or garner as much free publicity ('cause he's just NOT that talented)

heaven forbid anyone might think he can actually think for himself...

to some...paul is like that consumate 'the price is right' contestant we all know and love: can never think for himself..it is always only $1 more than the last guy...

and the actual various members of the band: of course, they, none of them, had any talent...except for that pre-universal skateboarding ability to ride coattails with aplomb !

hacks, all !

how could we, who lived in the '70's , have ever been so duped !

i'm gonna go throw my copy of 'wide prairie' out the window...after all, she never wanted to have any part of any sort of thing ! paul MUST'VE forced her to !the unimaginative cad !!

Now you're just being ridiculous, Atom.

Since no one is really understanding my point, I'll reiterate my main gripe about Wings: The band should have been marketed solely as Paul's backing band. That wasn't necessarily the case. It doesn't have anything to do with the other band members' talent, musical ability, etc. (well except maybe for Linda). By attempting to have the band be a collaborative unit (ie - allowing other band members to write and sing lead on songs) was a bad move because their music was completely over-shadowed by Paul's. And because it was only Paul that had any hits in the band, factored in with the group's interchangeable members from album to album, to call the group a serious collaborative effort is a joke.

Long story short: McCartney tried to market the group as more than just his backing band. They weren't.

Since no one is really understanding my point, I'll reiterate my main gripe about Wings: The band should have been marketed solely as Paul's backing band. That wasn't necessarily the case. It doesn't have anything to do with the other band members' talent, musical ability, etc. (well except maybe for Linda). By attempting to have the band be a collaborative unit (ie - allowing other band members to write and sing lead on songs) was a bad move because their music was completely over-shadowed by Paul's. And because it was only Paul that had any hits in the band, factored in with the group's interchangeable members from album to album, to call the group a serious collaborative effort is a joke.

Long story short: McCartney tried to market the group as more than just his backing band. They weren't.

I agree with most of this. Apart from the Linda marks, the other stuff makes sense. For instance Wings at the Speed of Sound is my least favorite Wings' album. It's mostly because of the vocals performed by the other band members. Most songs by Paul such as Let Em In, Silly Love Songs, She's My Baby, Beware my Love, San Ferry Anne, and Warm and Beautiful, I LOVE (Although not She's my baby so much). However others such as Time to Hide, Must do Something About it, Wino Junko, and the note you never wrote, are terrible. And Paul wrote some of those. However it's the other vocals by the band members on those songs that make them suck. And honestly putting Linda on lead for Cook of the House was not a good idea. Her harmonies are fine for me, but that song makes me cringe! It should have always been Paul McCartney AND Wings

i don't think i've seen anyone try to reinvent and/or rewrite himself out of his tiny corner quite so indelicately..

let's not forget your words:

1) wings produced 'nice albums'...not good, not even one great one, eh...'nice'..all those album sales, all those sold out shows...all those fans discussing, even now, the merits of those...'nice' albums...30-40 years later...

2) they were only 'fine musicians'..not good, not great, not superb, not the best, just...'fine'doesn't seem to matter that mccartney picked from a rather full crop of well known studio and session men*..they were just...'fine' or good'...

3) mccartney 'flaunted the band'..really...so, was he the world famous 'beatle', (who, btw, at that time, didn't need to do more than raise an eyebrow to get attention) or some poor lost schmuck who needed to 'flaunt' the band in order to get attention ?here's a hint..he didn't 'flaunt' the band: he stated time and time again that what he WANTED was a band, he attempted a bit of anonymity (which would never work), but, he was looking at shedding the past...to, if possible, hide from it a bit; he said so in just about every interview he ever gave at that time. but, of course, if one has never read anything he has to say on the issue...

4) 'by no means were any of these jokers on par...' really, 'jokers' ?..see the asterix * above...

5) 'linda had no business (being in the band)'; 'she only got thrust into the spotlight because paul wanted the attention john & yoko were getting..'; '..but linda was hardly yoko ono..': i addressed that one (and, of course, i'm ridiculous), but...i think nobody has any business telling an artist who they can or cannot have in their band (or, for that matter, what kind of music they should make): whether you like it or not, she added a distintive color and sound to the group...the group would not have been the same without her...and they were one of the top groups of their time...

other than completely overshadowing everyone who came before or after them..what more do you want ?

all those songs derek lists off are just fine by me, i like the experiment: i want my artists to become adventurous..and those very songs, by those very singers, ROCK on W.O.A (i guess those songs would've been the 'potty break' moments for the less adventurous wings/beatle fan, eh ?)....this fan wouldn't change a thing.

i'm not about to ascribe to an artist of mccartneys caliber the idiotic conceit that all of it was just a marketing ploy, meant to overshadow john and yoko, (AGAIN, YOUR WORDS) when ever interview he gave at that time, and since has been exactly the opposite.

it may not have been as perfectly successful an entity as he might've originally hoped for, but, at least he tried.in sound, texture, and precense, it was far more successful as both a separate, singular unit (wings) and as one part of mccartneys long and winding road than some 'fans' are, pretty obviously, willing to give it credit for.

the rather dismissive attitude, especially when refering to the 'jokers' who helped create that distinct sound is, as far as i'm concerned, nothing more than yet another lame attempt to denigrate the artistic abilities and thought processes of mccartney.

mr h atom wrote:all those songs derek lists off are just fine by me, i like the experiment: i want my artists to become adventurous..and those very songs, by those very singers, ROCK on W.O.A (i guess those songs would've been the 'potty break' moments for the less adventurous wings/beatle fan, eh ?)....this fan wouldn't change a thing.

Actually, none of the songs that the others on the album sang except for Time to Hide, was not on the WOA album. Must do something about, or Wino Junko, and Cook of the House were not on there. I also wouldn't change a thing about that album. Medicine Jar is fantastic on the album. I dislike the studio version however. Same with Call Me BAck again. Time to Hide is also very good on that album. However the Wings at the speed at the Sound album wasn't very good.

Since no one is really understanding my point, I'll reiterate my main gripe about Wings: The band should have been marketed solely as Paul's backing band. That wasn't necessarily the case. It doesn't have anything to do with the other band members' talent, musical ability, etc. (well except maybe for Linda). By attempting to have the band be a collaborative unit (ie - allowing other band members to write and sing lead on songs) was a bad move because their music was completely over-shadowed by Paul's. And because it was only Paul that had any hits in the band, factored in with the group's interchangeable members from album to album, to call the group a serious collaborative effort is a joke.

Long story short: McCartney tried to market the group as more than just his backing band. They weren't.

And what's wrong with that? I'd like to know? cuz . . . .

Ok now so what. Why didn't John just call it John Lennon Band instead of the Plastic Ono Band? Paul wanted desperately to be part of band after The Beatles breakup. Pure and simple. Wings filled that void. To insist he should have marketed Wings as just a backup band is just plain nonsense in my mind. I respect your opinion of course but I think based on the tremendous success of Wings as compared to another other backup bands the other's had, Paul was correct to market Wings as and/or the record company did. As a band.

Since no one is really understanding my point, I'll reiterate my main gripe about Wings: The band should have been marketed solely as Paul's backing band. That wasn't necessarily the case. It doesn't have anything to do with the other band members' talent, musical ability, etc. (well except maybe for Linda). By attempting to have the band be a collaborative unit (ie - allowing other band members to write and sing lead on songs) was a bad move because their music was completely over-shadowed by Paul's. And because it was only Paul that had any hits in the band, factored in with the group's interchangeable members from album to album, to call the group a serious collaborative effort is a joke.

Long story short: McCartney tried to market the group as more than just his backing band. They weren't.

And what's wrong with that? I'd like to know? cuz . . . .

Ok now so what. Why didn't John just call it John Lennon Band instead of the Plastic Ono Band? Paul wanted desperately to be part of band after The Beatles breakup. Pure and simple. Wings filled that void. To insist he should have marketed Wings as just a backup band is just plain nonsense in my mind. I respect your opinion of course but I think based on the tremendous success of Wings as compared to another other backup bands the other's had, Paul was correct to market Wings as and/or the record company did. As a band.

The tremendous success belonged solely to McCartney. That's the only point I'm trying to make. Do you honestly think songs like "Jet" or "Band On The Run" would not have been hits had he not named his band Wings and instead released them as a solo artist? The band was successful because McCartney was successful. There was *nothing* written or sung by any of the other band members that contributed to this success. Sure, they were a good band; they played well together and had successful live shows. But don't be fooled into thinking that anything the other members had to offer (such as "Cook of the House") had anything to do with why they were successful.

i don't think i've seen anyone try to reinvent and/or rewrite himself out of his tiny corner quite so indelicately..

let's not forget your words:

1) wings produced 'nice albums'...not good, not even one great one, eh...'nice'..all those album sales, all those sold out shows...all those fans discussing, even now, the merits of those...'nice' albums...30-40 years later...

2) they were only 'fine musicians'..not good, not great, not superb, not the best, just...'fine'doesn't seem to matter that mccartney picked from a rather full crop of well known studio and session men*..they were just...'fine' or good'...

3) mccartney 'flaunted the band'..really...so, was he the world famous 'beatle', (who, btw, at that time, didn't need to do more than raise an eyebrow to get attention) or some poor lost schmuck who needed to 'flaunt' the band in order to get attention ?here's a hint..he didn't 'flaunt' the band: he stated time and time again that what he WANTED was a band, he attempted a bit of anonymity (which would never work), but, he was looking at shedding the past...to, if possible, hide from it a bit; he said so in just about every interview he ever gave at that time. but, of course, if one has never read anything he has to say on the issue...

4) 'by no means were any of these jokers on par...' really, 'jokers' ?..see the asterix * above...

5) 'linda had no business (being in the band)'; 'she only got thrust into the spotlight because paul wanted the attention john & yoko were getting..'; '..but linda was hardly yoko ono..': i addressed that one (and, of course, i'm ridiculous), but...i think nobody has any business telling an artist who they can or cannot have in their band (or, for that matter, what kind of music they should make): whether you like it or not, she added a distintive color and sound to the group...the group would not have been the same without her...and they were one of the top groups of their time...

other than completely overshadowing everyone who came before or after them..what more do you want ?

all those songs derek lists off are just fine by me, i like the experiment: i want my artists to become adventurous..and those very songs, by those very singers, ROCK on W.O.A (i guess those songs would've been the 'potty break' moments for the less adventurous wings/beatle fan, eh ?)....this fan wouldn't change a thing.

i'm not about to ascribe to an artist of mccartneys caliber the idiotic conceit that all of it was just a marketing ploy, meant to overshadow john and yoko, (AGAIN, YOUR WORDS) when ever interview he gave at that time, and since has been exactly the opposite.

it may not have been as perfectly successful an entity as he might've originally hoped for, but, at least he tried.in sound, texture, and precense, it was far more successful as both a separate, singular unit (wings) and as one part of mccartneys long and winding road than some 'fans' are, pretty obviously, willing to give it credit for.

the rather dismissive attitude, especially when refering to the 'jokers' who helped create that distinct sound is, as far as i'm concerned, nothing more than yet another lame attempt to denigrate the artistic abilities and thought processes of mccartney.

All I can say is you are being extremely over-dramatic here. If Wings rocks your world, more power to you. I don't find them quite as impressive, but that's just me.

Awesoman wrote:The tremendous success belonged solely to McCartney. That's the only point I'm trying to make. Do you honestly think songs like "Jet" or "Band On The Run" would not have been hits had he not named his band Wings and instead released them as a solo artist? The band was successful because McCartney was successful. There was *nothing* written or sung by any of the other band members that contributed to this success. Sure, they were a good band; they played well together and had successful live shows. But don't be fooled into thinking that anything the other members had to offer (such as "Cook of the House") had anything to do with why they were successful.

They were a band releasing albums and on tour. Touring certainly is a must though not as much now as it was back in the day. Wings was a good band and touring with the band did contribute tremendously to the band's success as measured by record sales. Many bands toured in the 70's but had opening acts, Wings never did and today Paul still doesn't. Even though that statement isn't relevant to the subject, it proves that I can go on blabbing irrelevancies too

Every single member that Wings ever had contributed something to the band if nothing but the sound! why on Earth do you think McCartney asked them to join the band, he heard something that he liked!

All this total bull about them just being McCartneys back up is just ridiculous! Joe English to this day is still the best drummer McCartney has had with Abe coming in a close second. Jimmy McCollough was a red hot young rocking guitarist giving Wings a more rocking sound.

I was there in 76 at the Seattle Kingdome on June 10 at Wings concert, and I've seen the Who, Zeppelin, Genesis, Aerosmith, Foghat, Rod Stewart, Twisted Sister, Quiet Riot, Bad Company, 38 Special, Journey, Loverboy, ZZ top, and many other back in the day, and I can say without a doubt that Wings could hold their own and rock with any of them, in fact very few of these band had a vocalist and bass player as good as Paul McCartney!

So you can stop all this nonsense, Wings freaking rocked, they tore the roof off everywhere they went, and I do mean everywhere! They broke and set world records with their concerts!

maccafan wrote:I was there in 76 at the Seattle Kingdome on June 10 at Wings concert, and I've seen the Who, Zeppelin, Genesis, Aerosmith, Foghat, Rod Stewart, Twisted Sister, Quiet Riot, Bad Company, 38 Special, Journey, Loverboy, ZZ top, and many other back in the day, and I can say without a doubt that Wings could hold their own and rock with any of them, in fact very few of these band had a vocalist and bass player as good as Paul McCartney!

you lose all respectabilty for seeing twisted sister, quiet riot and loverboy in concert.

step away. just...step away.

I want to tell her that I love her a lot, but I got to get a belly full of wine.